FossPatents: Nokia wins German patent injunction against ALL HTC Android devices. Enforceable against 400 million euro bond.

| December 30, 2013 | 67 Replies

Screen Shot 2013-12-30 at 16.43.26


HTC is getting hit left right and centre, by Samsung on Android, by Nokia in WP (and patents) and internally with their VPs leaking things.

The latest bash comes in from Nokia again who has won a German patent injunction against ALL HTC Android devices.

Cheers Prashant for the tip!


Category: Nokia

About the Author ()

Hey, thanks for reading my post. My name is Jay and I'm a medical student at the University of Manchester. When I can, I blog here at and tweet now and again @jaymontano. We also have a twitter and facebook accounts @mynokiablog and Check out the tips, guides and rules for commenting >>click<< Contact us at tips(@) or email me directly on jay[at]
  • Random Random

    This is natural evolution for old companies unable to compete with actual products.

    Nokia is not the first one to become a company making business with the patents.

    Maybe Nokia was lucky to make such a short agreement with Apple. Now that may become handy for them.

    • Imarius

      do you own a modern mobile phone or smart phone (any brand)? you might want to check how many patents on those belong to nokia , when it come to telecommunications patents they have had their hand in everything from radio design to gsm and bluetooth.

      while your at it can you tell me how many times nokia has lost a case to another company ? its simple if you create or invent something then you have every right to patent it. Apple and HTC would not have lost these cases if they just paid money ( Samsung had no problem paying up to nokia on patents).

      • Random Random


        Effectively Apple won the case.

        As far as we know, Nokia wanted to get way more money from the patents but Apple ended up paying just some change compared to the profits they generated with iOS based products.

        It wasn’t like Nokia had an option to decline from licensing.

        It was about the price.

        • who knows

          “Effectively Apple won the case. ”

          Yup, Apple won alright. First Apple paid a lump sum for the time they’ve sold iPhones that used Nokias patents up until the point of agreement and then they’ll continue to pay Nokia for future sales.

          No way around it, Apple won. Nokia surely lost since they got money from their patents.

          • Random Random


            If you really think that Apple paying something like 1-2 euro / iOS device is a victory for Nokia, you really have a strange way of defining a victory.

            It would be like paying 500 euros for a nice new BMW and claiming how the seller won when they got some money.

            I’m pretty sure you haven’t checked how much money Nokia really got from that deal.

            • who knows

              Congrats to Apple for being able to sell their phones with high margins. Doesn’t change the cost to license Nokias patents per phone though.

              • Random Random


                That’s what the argument was all about.

                Nokia wanted to change the cost of the licensing fee based on the price Apple is selling the devices.

                Apple wanted to pay a fixed price and eventually got what they wanted.

                You must be a huge Nokia fan if you think this was a victory for them.

                • who knows

                  I have not heard anything about Nokia being paid royalties depending on selling price of a device, which would be absurd. Where is your source that it was this they were arguing about and not about paying vs not paying?

                  • Random Random

                    Nokia’s interim reports.

                    You can try looking up the payments from there but in any case they are minimal.

                    Have you checked those? Only one bigger payment can be found and it’s from the time the deal was made.

                    The original case happened because Apple wanted to pay a fixed amount of money and Nokia didn’t agree to that.

                    • who knows

                      I know very well what the amount of the payments are. I was wondering about your source to where you get the information that it only went to court whether Apple would be paying a fixed amount per device or a fee depending on the selling price. I want your source, without it, it’s not believable.

                    • Random Random


                      What are the payments?

                      The initial payment and how much did Apple pay at the later time.

                      According to you.


                    • who knows

                      So no source then. I see.

                    • Random Random

                      No numbers from you then?

                      I guess you don’t have those.

                      It’s pointless for me to give any additional proof because you said that you have the actual numbers.

                      However I’m pretty sure you don’t have those.

                    • who knows

                      Additional proof? To give additional proof you need to have giving any proof at all, which you haven’t.

                      The size of payments is not disclosed publicly so it is impossible to give an exact number. You however have giving an estimate of how big they are which I haven’t questioned. Why did you even bring that up in our conversation?

                      I want your source of fixed sum vs per cent of selling prize however (which this whole discussion is about).

                  • Random Random

                    You claimed to know very well what the amount of the payments are.

                    Just tell what the amount is.

                    I never claimed anything that exact.


                    • who knows

                      Are you really this dumb?

                    • Random Random

                      So you don’t have any proof?

                      And how it’s impossible that the payments are a percentage of the revenues?

                      Check Nokia’s incomes from the patents.

                      I bet that you as an ignorant person never bothered to do that.

                    • who knows

                      I will give a longer reply tomorrow.

                    • Random Random


                      Do that.

                      And before doing that you can think how ignorant it looks when you tell that someone is dumb while you have absolutely nothing to say to back up your claims.


                    • who knows

                      It was a question, and a valid one at that.

                      The line “I know very well what the payments are” refers to that I have good knowledge about the size of the payments, I wasn’t asking about the size of the payment, it was also irrelevant to what we were discussing in the first place. Here I thought we were discussing why Nokia sued Apple in the first place and why the outcome was a win for Apple.

                      According to you the size of the money wasn’t a problem, the problem was a fixed sum per device vs. a per cent of the selling price. You have also said in the comment section that Apple ended up paying what they first wanted to pay and on the terms they wanted. That is a complete win. Strange that the matter was settled outside the court then. And to highlight: I was not interested in reading Nokias financial reports trying to find out exactly how big the settlement was and responded with that I already knew about the sizes of the payments. I didn’t realize that you would try to hijack the talking point around that, silly me. Silly, silly me.

                      But I will play your little game and give you my understanding of how big the settlement was. Nokia received a one-time payment of roughly 430 million euros in Q2 2011. That payment was for the devices Apple had sold up until the settlement. Since this was settled outside of court the sum and the ongoing royalty payment will not be given. The 430 million euros equivalents of around 4 euros per device which I suspect will be the ongoing royalty payment. There, are you happy now?

                      And lastly, just to point out how silly your arguments are let’s hear what Apple themselves said about the situation at the time. In Apples statement to the court the following can be deducted:

                      1. Apple says Nokia’s patents aren’t actually essential to GSM / UMTS
                      2. Apple even denies infringing them
                      3. Apple says the patents are invalid and/or unenforceable anyway
                      4. Apple doesn’t say anything about fixed royalty payment vs. per cent of selling price.


                    • Random Random

                      Your nice little story fails because you didn’t bother to look at the interim reports.

                      Apple did pay Nokia that one time payment. Never claimed they didn’t.

                      However your story falls apart because it’s bot possible to find Apple paying Nokia 4 euros per device after the one time payment.

                      Just like I said at an earlier time.

                      You should do your homework before claiming something like that.


                    • who knows

                      Nokia doesn’t say what an individual licensee pays per device in their financial reports. Feel free to prove me wrong and give which financial report and page number they state Apples royalty license rate for iPhones.

                      Since Nokia didn’t seek any additional compensation, just that Apple pays a royalty fee for use of Nokias patents, the onetime payment divided by the number of sold iPhones (that used Nokias proprietary technology) up till the payment gives you the royalty rate. That makes it around 4 euros per device.

                    • Random Random

                      Nokia tells in the interim reports the amounts of the patent fees.

                      Even if 100% of the patent fees were from Apple, they are not nearly enough to back up your claims that the initial payment was for the devices sold until that date / 4 euros a device while Apple was going to pay more after that date.

                      For example in 2012 Nokia received less than 500 million patent fees. At the same time Apple sold well over 200 million iOS devices.

                      If your claim about 4 euros / device was true, Nokia should have received twice that amount of money and that’s assuming that everyone else ended the payments for Nokia.

                      Then again, Nokia says this on Q4 2012 interim report.

                      “Our overall Devices & Services net sales in 2012 benefited from the recognition in Devices & Services Other of approximately EUR 50
                      millio (EUR 450 million in 2011) of non-recurring IPR income.”

                      We know that 450 millions pretty much comes from Apple and that suggests that Nokia only got 50 millions in 2012 from Apple. That would be on line with the growth of Nokia’s earning from the patents compared to the previous years.

                      50 million would make Nokia to get less than 0,25 euros / iOS device. Not the 4 euros you are suggesting.

                      In any case 4 euros / device is not possible. A fact easily checked from the interim reports.


                      Apple didn’t have to pay too much for Nokia.

                    • Random Random
                    • who knows

                      If you base your calculation on a logic that gives you a very unlikely answer, maybe you should revise your logic.

                      “We know that 450 millions pretty much comes from Apple and that suggests that Nokia only got 50 millions in 2012 from Apple”

                      Ehh, no. So you are thinking that Nokia gets 0.25 euro / iPhone because Nokia got 50 million euro in a onetime payment from Blackberry in a settlement 2012 Q4? Or now that you know that the 50 million euros comes from Blackberry, will you now draw the conclusion that Nokia gets 0 from Apple?

                      The second thing is that the category other in D&S is where the onetime payments end up in, not those that are continues. Like the ongoing royalty payment from Apple. So you are looking at it from the wrong angle already from the start.

                      Nokia has a net income of 500 million euro per year for patents. You do know that Nokia for example pays a lot (like everybody else) for using 3G technology based on Qualcomms patents, right? Even though they are paying to others they are a net receiver. The income from patents will go up much now that they are quitting the hardware business so they don’t need to cross-license anymore.

                      Your calculations and conclusions are seriously flawed.

                    • Random Random

                      I’ll make it simple for you.

                      You claimed that Nokia received 4 euros / iOS device in 2011.

                      All the patent payments combined Nokia received in 2012 are not enough to make Nokia receiving 4 euros / iOS device.

                      If Nokia was receiving that kinf of money, why it can’t be seen on the interim reports?

                      The answer is.

                      Nokia didn’t get 4 euros / device.


                      Of course Apple’s patents were so valuable that Nokia wasn’t going to get that big net payments.

                      Apple won because they only had to pay very little for Nokia.

                    • Random Random

                      I’ll help you even more.

                      If Apple paid in 2011 that 4 euros / device that was also a net payment. Or would have been if they paid for the devices already sold.

                      That would make 4 euros / device the net payment.

                      But it can’t be because Nokia never had enough money from the patents in 2012 to make that possible.


                      Your calculations were quite flawed.

                    • who knows

                      “All the patent payments combined Nokia received in 2012 are not enough to make Nokia receiving 4 euros / iOS device.”

                      Impossible to conclude since you don’t know what Nokia received 2012, plus you don’t know the cost for 2012. You only know what the net income is.

                      Faulty assumptions leads to faulty conclusions.

                    • Random Random


                      The net income in 2011 was 450 million and you said it was for the iOS devices already sold.

                      That makes net income 4 euros / iOS device.

                      After that date Nokia’s all the patent incomes combined doesn’t make them to receive the same net income.

                      Check your calculations.

                    • who knows

                      You’re not helping anyone. Seems like you have a serious problem taking in information.

                      1. Nokia pays for patents (unknown amount, but they pay a lot to Qualcomm)
                      2. Nokia receives money for letting other use their patents (unknown amount)
                      3. You know that Nokia is a net receiver of 500 million euros 2012.

                      It is impossible to conclude from that information that Apple can’t pay Nokia 4 euros / device.

                      What you do have however, is information about how much Apple pays for the number of sold iPhones up until Q2 2011. From that you can extract the royalty license fee for Apple since Nokia only wanted money for the license fee and no further compensation.


                    • Random Random

                      Check your numbers.

                      1. In Apple pays a *net* cost of 4 euro / device for Nokia.

                      2. In 2012 Apple builds more than 200 million devices and the *net* cost of those should be over 4*200 million.

                      3. Nokia receives a *net* cost of less than 500 million in 2012.

                      The number 3 makes number 2 impossible.

                      Also, if there were any big license costs from Nokia for some other company, they would be listed because required by law. However they are not.

                    • who knows

                      You do realize that Nokias report is not about Apple, right? The patent income stated in Q4 report 2012 is in total. That means; every expenditure and every income for every patent agreement. The 500 million euros is not what Apples pays, it is a sum. For all. Get it?

                    • Random Random

                      You should also understand that if Apple was paying a *net* of 4 euros device Nokia should be getting much more money.

                      Nokia should have received a *net* payment of 1000 million euros in 2013 if your claim about 4 euro / device was true.

                      Nokia is not getting that kind of money in combined.

                      That makes your claim false.

                      Please learn to read numbers.

                    • who knows

                      You don’t seem to understand the concept of net income.

                      An example of how to calculate net income:
                      Apple pays 800 million euros to Nokia for using their patents.
                      Nokia pays 600 million euros to Qualcomm for using their patents.
                      Nokias patent net income is then +200 million euros.

                    • Random Random

                      We know that Apple paid 450 million for Nokia.

                      However Nokia’s patent incomes have barely increased after that time.

                      Nokia also never told that they were paying other companies more and more. They must tell that because of the law.

                      That means there is no proof of Nokia getting any more money from Apple.


                      Apple won this one.

                      You seem to have problems understanding net income.

                    • who knows

                      “Nokia also never told that they were paying other companies more and more. They must tell that because of the law.”

                      Yes, they would have to inform the shareholders of any new event but since the deal was struck in 2008 it doesn’t have to be mentioned in the financial report 2012.

                      “However Nokia’s patent incomes have barely increased after that time.”

                      Nokia themselves declared 2012 that patent revenues were increasing. Don’t know where you have gotten your information from.

                    • Random Random


                      Nokia’s patent portfolio seems to be quite weak.

                      They are getting only a bit more money even while Apple is selling tons of devices.

                      Chen how Qualcomm was paid and you learn.

                    • Random Random


                      It actually looks like Apple won big time on patents.

                      Or Nokia is heavily losing on the patents for other companies.

                      Nokia’s patent earnings were up from 2011 to 2012 only 54 million when Apple’s one time payment of not counted in the 2011 results.

                      The quarters 1-3 in 2013 suggests that it has not improved much more.


                      Either Nokia received one time payment from Apple, covering all devices sold by Apple at least until the end of Q3 2013, or Nokia is heavily losing for someone else and is forced to pay massive amounts of money for the patents Nokia has been using.

                      Since we haven’t heard about Nokia losing for someone else, it’s likely that Apple made one time payment for Nokia and didn’t pay Nokia after that.

                      That makes the cost for Apple less than 0,50 euros / device.

                      Apple has truly won Nokia what it comes to the patents.


                    • who knows

                      Nope, you are wrong and you are still missing the concept of net income.

                      1. Look at Q3 2011. The licensing cost is the same as in Q3 2010 but the patent income increased with 85 million euros. 85 divided by 4 is 21.25. That quarter Apple sold 17 million iPhones.

                      2. In Q4 2011 Nokias patent structure changes due to the start of Lumia shipment. A cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft changes it. Nokias patent cost lowers and the income lowers but the net is still increasing if you exclude onetime payments. Also different divestments changes the patent income from previous years.

                      3. If you compare the first nine months in 2013 with the first nine months in 2012 you see that Nokias net income from patents has increased with 91 million euros. That would be an increasing patent income from 22 million additional iPhones 2013 compared to 2012.

                    • Random Random


                      You are apparently trying to say that Nokia is currently heavily losing for other companies than Apple.

                      You are trying to say that Apple is now paying 1000 million / year for Nokia and because of the increased patent cost from Nokia to other companies, Nokia is forced to pay most of that for other companies.

                      However Nokia has not mentioned about that massive additional costs so your calculations are flawed.

                    • who knows

                      Ridiculous. You can write to Nokia that their financial reports are wrong any Apple shouldn’t pay any licensing cost since they effectively won. Don’t let reality stop you, you can do it.

                    • Random Random


                      Nokia’s financial reports don’t seem to be wrong. They just don’t back up your claims.

                      All Nokia is saying is that Apple paid them one time fee for using the patents. That was 450 million.

                      Nokia never said that more was paid and it’s also not possible to find any more payments from Nokia’s financials.

                      A net payment of 1000 million euros coming from Apple would be there if your claim was true but unfortunately it’s not there.

                      All the numbers above are about net payments.

                    • who knows


                      Look at the financial report Q3 2011 before the Microsoft deal changes the structure of licensing agreement.

                      Check the net income from patents excluded onetime payments.

                      It is clear that Apple pays Nokia a lot of money, except for those that have some sort of mental hindrance from accepting reality when it comes to Apple.

                    • Random Random


                      It’s definitely not clear.

                      There is no data about Apple paying Nokia that kind of money.

                      All that they have said to pay is that one time payment of 450 millions.

                    • who knows

                      Q3 2010
                      The cost for patents was 77 million euros.
                      The income for patents was 197 million euros.

                      Q3 2011
                      The cost for patents was 78 million euros.
                      The income for patents was 283 million euros.

                      The difference of income between the two years are 86 million euros. In the same quarter Apple sold 17 million iPhones. What is not clear about it?

                    • Random Random

                      First, are you trying to say that Apple is paying only for iPhones and not other iOS devices? Nokia sued Apple for all of the iOS devices.

                      Second, where are they saying that net money is from Apple?

                      Third, why isn’t the net payment increasing that the same rate at a later time?

                      And fourth, they are not saying it’s from Apple. They also never said Apple will continue paying Nokia.

                      What’s not clear in that?

                    • who knows

                      Wow, you are such an Apple fanboy. Biggest I’ve encountered yet, that in itself is an achievement.

                      First you say that I should check the financial reports. Then you say that they don’t say anything. Interesting.

                      I think we have reach the end of this conversation. You are opposing the general view of how big the settlement was which would mean (in the normal world) that it is you that should provide proof of your contrarian view. You have not. Feel free to live in your bubble, I am done with this.

                    • Random Random


                      There just isn’t anything to back up your claims.

                      It’s not unusual to see someone like you accusing others when they use actual facts.


                      You completely miss the point that Nokia’s net income from patents just isn’t big enough to back up your claims. Also, you don’t seem to understand what net payment means.

                      I guess you are just ignorant.

                    • Random Random


                      Now it should be quite obvious for anyone that “who knows” is a Nokia fanboy.

                      In the end he failed to comment about the facts I posted here. Nice facts illustrating the payments Nokia received. Payments that were not big enough to back up his claims.

                      And then of course neither Apple or Nokia never said that there would be any additional money. He completely ignores that.

                      I wonder why some people writing here in MNB are that dishonest? It’s hard to believe that someone would pay for them to do that.

                      I really wonder why.


                      In the end he did what those people usually do. Announce the end of discussion. That’s how they usually give up.

    • Dave

      I believe that Nokia are actually outselling HTC …. so how is this a company that aren’t competing with actual products.

      If the patents are being infringed, then thats it. And remember that Nokia were amongst the key founders of most mobile technologies.

      • Random Random

        Sure, but the most important ones are supposed to be licensed under FRAND terms.

        Nokia can’t demand any kind of money from those patents.

        Then again it really makes sense for Nokia to end making phones and start making money with patents. After all they lost the vision of how to make cutting edge phones the customers want to pay for.

        • monkey travels to end of yesterday/.

          • Random Random


            Despite of that the most important ones are licensed under FRAND terms.

        • Dave

          Are the full details of this known? Did HTC ever ask for licensing of these patents?

          I’d love to know who you think makes cutting edge phones these days. There’s no one out there making anything truly decent – every single device has some form of irritating compromise one way or other.

          For example, there isn’t a single Android device on the market with a decent camera.

          WP is (for me at least) restricted by its appstore (I actually don’t mind the interface).

          iOS is utterly abhorrent (I have a 4S).

          • Random Random

            We pretty much know the FRAND patents. If I remember correctly Nokia’s entire first lawsuit included only FRAND patents.

            Samsung has lots of phones with decent cameras. They even have some with very good cameras. Saying that the best 8MP shooters made today are not decent is like saying that N95 always took crappy pictures.

            Samsung and Apple are two companies making great modern smartphones.

            There are great phones for almost everyone.

            Almost the only group missing some products are those people who can be called technical experts but mobile illiterates.

    • MartyX

      And why exactly Nokia is not entitled to get money from technology licensing as everybody else? HTC has knowlingly used Nokia technology without license, which is quite similar to stealing. Nokia has spent tens of billions of dollars in R&D, they deserve their share of compensation. Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm etc.have already agreed to pay, HTC is next.

  • dss

    You can’t just take technology developed by other and start using it for your own profits.

    Apple did it for a while there and at the end they paid Nokia, Google is getting away with A LOT on their own but their OEMs are paying Microsoft a fraction of what should be paid by Google directly to Microsoft.

    • Random Random

      Sure, Apple ended up paying about 10% of what Nokia was expecting them to pay.

      And Apple was offering Nokia that money for all the time.

      Then again it wasn’t just Nokia getting some money.

      Nokia has paid for Qualcomm’s licenses for almost 10 more years.

      • MartyX

        You are wrong in basically everything you post. Nokia had a big win against Apple which refused to pay anything in the beginning. The gross royalty per device has been estimated to be several dollars. However, that sum is not visible directly in Nokia results, since Nokia needs also Apple’s patents. So, there is cross licensing. Same with Qualcomm, there is cross licensing scheme. All big players needs licensies from each other. However, due to it’s huge R&D budget, Nokia has been on the winning side as it should be. Without Nokia research, Apple could not have made iPhone as we know it. Apple has not invented that much, they have just made existing technologies work better.

        • xNokian

          Unfortunately you are waisting your time trying to reason with random. He lives in alternate reality where black is white and vice versa. Sometimes he calls back white and other times will dodge the subject and will keep pointing out other BS.

          • Random Random


            That’s your illusion.

            Unfortunately it’s you who fail to deliver the actual facts.

        • Random Random

          Sure, Apple just invented the modern smartphone.

          Are you serious about the cost for Apple? Where can that be seen in Nokia’s interim reports?

          The patent incomes can be seen from the interim reports and they just don’t have that kind of money coming from there.


          Please correct the errors you made.

          • MartyX

            You don’t understand how patent system works.
            Not all the actual payments are directly visible in the interim results as cash payments. There are complex legal, technical and financial procedures involved. For example, Nokia could use some Apple technology worth of tens of millions what others cannot use at all, or what others need to pay. Same vice versa. Both parties can save hundreds of millions for not to have to develop any workaround solutions. They are not directly visible in balance sheet.

            BTW, here are some analysts estimates on royalties

            • Random Random


              I understand that.

              It was never questioned that Apple would pay for Nokia because Nokia had more patents than Apple has.


              Apple ended up paying very little for Nokia.

              Apple pretty much won this because they ended up paying so little for Nokia.

              • lol

                Why there is so much rubbish coming out from your mouth???

                • Random Random


                  How come you are so ignorant that you can’t even understand what I said?


  • Pingback: Nokia scores major legal win over HTC in Germany - SmartPhones()